DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Lines 2-3, “the confining casing is characterized by the presence of a partition” should be revised to “the confining casing has a partition” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 8, “this end wall” should be revised to “the end wall” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 15, “the pivot seat 16” should be revised to “the pivot seat” to ensure proper claim formatting.
In Claim 1 Line 15, “on such pivot seat” should be revised to “on the pivot seat” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 21, “the other side” should be revised to “an other side” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 22, “assembly end;” should be revised to “assembly end; and” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 25, “the projecting axis X” should be revised to “a projecting axis” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 26, “the projecting axis Y” should be revised to “a projecting axis” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 27, “when the oscillating end” should be revised to “wherein when the oscillating end” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 2 Line 3, “to the ends of the two elastic arms” should be revised to “to ends of the two elastic arms” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 3 Line 4, “against the two sides of the oscillating end” should be revised to “against two sides of the oscillating end” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 3 Line 5, “a certain degree of elasticity” should be revised to “a degree of elasticity” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 3 Line 5, “constrains the pivoting action” should be revised to “constrains a pivoting action” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 4 Line 4, “to enhance the flexibility” should be revised to “to enhance flexibility” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 4 Line 4, “of the snap-over action” should be revised to “of a snap-over action” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 5 Line 2, “in the form of a shaft structure” should be revised to “formed as a shaft structure” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 5 Line 3, “in the form of a shaft hole” should be revised to “formed as a shaft hole” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 6 Line 2, “is a hollow tube shape” should be revised to “is shaped as a hollow tube” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 6 Line 2, “the oscillating supporting flange” should be revised to “the supporting flange” to ensure using terminology that is consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 7 Line 3, “is in the range” should be revised to “is in a range” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “spray angle control mechanism” in Claim 1 which uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language of “spray angle control” without reciting any structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
However, a review of the specification shows that the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Paragraph 0027 of the Specification which states, “Since the transmission relationship between the impeller 70, the variable speed gear set 80, and the spray angle control mechanism 30 described herein is within to the scope of the prior art and has many specific implementations in sprinklers, which are not within the scope of the present invention, so it will not be described in detail.”. However, no specific prior art has been cited or mentioned by the applicant. Fig. 2 shows #30 as a structure that appears to be a dial, however no specific structure is stated in the specification. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “spray angle control mechanism” in Claim 1 as best understood to be a dial and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means of the pivot joint” in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation “spray angle control mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 0027 of the Specification states, “Since the transmission relationship between the impeller 70, the variable speed gear set 80, and the spray angle control mechanism 30 described herein is within to the scope of the prior art and has many specific implementations in sprinklers, which are not within the scope of the present invention, so it will not be described in detail.”. However, no specific prior art has been cited or mentioned by the applicant. Fig. 2 shows #30 as a structure that appears to be a dial structure, however no specific structure is stated in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “spray angle control mechanism” in Claim 1 as best understood to be a dial and equivalents thereof.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-7 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite since Claim 1 from which they depend is indefinite.
Claim 4 is also indefinite because Lines 3-5 state “an elastic board is formed between the two profiled grooves and constitutes the snap-over portion on the structure of the elastic board to enhance the flexibility of the snap-over action of the snap-over portion” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the structure of the elastic board” in the claim. It is not clear if a “structure” was intended to be previously recited or not and it is not clear if “the structure of the elastic board” is a specific part of the elastic board. For the purpose of examination, Claim 4 Lines 3-5 will be interpreted to state “an elastic board is formed between the two profiled grooves and enhances flexibility of a snap-over action of the snap-over portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2019/0000023 A1 to Chen (“Chen”).
As to Claim 1, Chen discloses a water flow switching device for sprinkler applications (See Figs. 4-8), wherein the water flow switching device is situated within a confining casing (#12) of a sprinkler control module (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprinkler control module), this confining casing is characterized by the presence of a partition (#20) dividing the confining casing into a gear chamber (See Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 8) and a reversing impeller chamber (See Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 8); the partition is formed with a first passage (#201) and a second passage (#202) providing communication between the gear chamber and the reversing impeller chamber (See Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 8); in addition, an oscillation positioning portion is disposed between the first passage and the second passage within the partition (See Annotated Fig. 8); the gear chamber also includes an end wall which is spaced apart from the partition (See Annotated Fig. 8), this end wall is provided with a spray angle control mechanism on its outside (#50, See Figs. 1-2 and Fig. 8), and a pivot seat (#121) is provided inside of the gear chamber (See Annotated Fig. 8); the water flow switching device comprising:
a projecting swing arm (#40) having a driven end (#401), an oscillating end (#403), and a supporting flange between the driven end and the oscillating end (#41), wherein the driven end extends to the exterior of the end wall and corresponds to the spray angle control mechanism to form a driven relationship (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0022), the oscillating end is located in the gear chamber (See Annotated Fig. 8), and the supporting flange is mounted on the pivot seat allowing the oscillating end to swing on such pivot seat as a pivot point (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0022), including a first oscillating position (See Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0028) and a second oscillating position (See Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0028);
a water shut-off device (#30) disposed in the gear chamber, one side of the water shut-off device including a first flap end (See Annotated Fig. 8), a second flap end (See Annotated Fig. 8), and a snap-over portion between the first flap end and the second flap end (See Annotated Fig. 8, the snap-over portion is a portion that causes closing action in multiple directions, and closing action is equivalent to snapping over from one side to another), wherein the first flap end corresponds to the first passage (See Annotated Fig. 8), the second flap end corresponds to the second passage (See Annotated Fig. 8), and the snap-over portion corresponds to the oscillation positioning portion (See Annotated Fig. 8); and the other side of the water shut-off device is formed with an assembly end (See Annotated Fig. 8);
a pivot joint (#31 and #405) provided between the assembly end of the water shut-off device and the oscillating end of the projecting swing arm (See Annotated Fig. 8); the pivot joint comprises a convex portion (#31) and a concave portion (#405) which are nested and pivotable with each other (See Figs. 6-8 and Paragraph 0028), and the projecting axis X of the convex portion and the projecting axis Y of the projecting swing arm are in an orthogonal relationship with each other (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Fig. 8); by means of the pivot joint, when the oscillating end of the projecting swing arm is in the first oscillating position, it operates the first flap end of the water shut-off device to press against and close the first passage (See Fig. 6), and when the oscillating end is in the second oscillating position, it operates the second flap end of the water shut-off device to press against and close the second passage (See Fig. 8).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the water flow switching device for sprinkler applications of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above, Chen further discloses wherein the water shut-off device further includes two elastic arms (See Annotated Fig. 2, each side of #30 is equivalent to an arm that is made of a material that is elastic to some extent), in a bifurcated configuration (See Annotated Fig. 2, the two arms branch in opposite directions such that they are bifurcated), allowing the first flap end and the second flap end to be coupled to the ends of the two elastic arms, respectively (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 8, the first flap end and the second flap end are integrally coupled to the two elastic arms).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the water flow switching device for sprinkler applications of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above, Chen further discloses wherein two profiled grooves are formed on both sides of the snap-over portion of the water shut-off device (See Annotated Fig. 5, corner profiles around the snap-over portion are equivalent to profiled grooves), and an elastic board is formed between the two profiled grooves and constitutes the snap-over portion on the structure of the elastic board to enhance the flexibility of the snap-over action of the snap-over portion (See Annotated Fig. 5, the structure that is the snap-over portion is equivalent to a board that is made of a material that is elastic and flexible to some extent thus making up a structure that at least enhances flexibility of snap over action of the snap-over portion to some extent when moving from the first position to the second position).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the water flow switching device for sprinkler applications of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above, Chen further discloses wherein the convex portion of the pivot joint is in the form of a shaft structure (See Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0022, #31 is a structure that is equivalent to a shaft), and the concave portion is in the form of a shaft hole that is compatible with the convex portion to be sleeved and rotated (See Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0022, #405 is a structure that is equivalent to a hole that #31 is sleeved in and rotated in).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the water flow switching device for sprinkler applications of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above, Chen further discloses, wherein the pivot seat of the gear chamber is a hollow tube shape, and the oscillating supporting flange is formed as an elastic ring and mounted on the pivot seat to achieve an effect of being able to oscillate along with an effect of being watertight (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0022).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the water flow switching device for sprinkler applications of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above, Chen further discloses wherein an angle Ɵ is formed between the first flap end and the first passage in an unsealed state (See Annotated Fig. 8-detail), and the angle Ɵ is in the range of 5 degrees to 12 degrees, and the second flap end has the same corresponding relationship with the second passage (See Fig. 6 and Annotated Fig. 8-detail, the angle Ɵ is formed as an acute angle that measures as a value of approximately 10 degrees, which is larger than 5 degrees and smaller than 12 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
704
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
614
930
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US PGPUB 2024/0035587 A1 to Hsieh (“Hsieh”).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the water flow switching device for sprinkler applications of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above, Chen does not specifically disclose wherein the pivot joint further includes two elastic clips which are symmetrically configured at intervals, the two elastic clips being connected to the assembly end of the water shut-off device and being elastically pressed against the two sides of the oscillating end of the projecting swing arm to produce a certain degree of elasticity which constrains the pivoting action of the pivot joint.
However Hsieh discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid sprinkling (See Paragraph 0001) a water flow switching device for sprinkler applications (See Fig. 8) comprising a pivot joint (#322 and #261) that includes two elastic clips (#322, which are clip structures that are made of a material that is elastic to some extent) which are symmetrically configured at intervals (See Fig. 8), the two elastic clips being connected to an assembly end (See Fig. 8) of a water shut-off device (#26) and being elastically pressed against two sides of an oscillating end (#32) of a projecting swing arm (#31) to produce a degree of elasticity which constrains pivoting action of the pivot joint (See Figs. 8-9, the clips #322 integrally press against sides of #32 to some extent such that some degree of elasticity is produced that constrains pivoting of the pivot joint to a range of angles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water flow switching device for sprinkler application of Chen as applied to Claim 1 above by replacing the pivot joint of Chen with the pivot joint of Hsieh such that the pivot joint further includes two elastic clips which are symmetrically configured at intervals, the two elastic clips being connected to the assembly end of the water shut-off device and being elastically pressed against the two sides of the oscillating end of the projecting swing arm to produce a certain degree of elasticity which constrains the pivoting action of the pivot joint, since doing so utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of precisely mounting the pivot joint (See Hsieh Paragraph 0045).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 2, 2026